DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges that Knibbeler and/or Oh does not disclose the amended limitation “wherein the type used for the electro-optical conversation is independent of an HDR display capability of an output device.” After further reviewing Knibbeler reference, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Knibbeler explicitly discloses (¶0285, ¶0164) that the image processing device is arranged to perform a dynamic range transform based on a target display reference received from the content provider apparatus but without any specific information or knowledge of the specific display (i.e. it may simply generate the output image to be optimized for a given dynamic range/white point but without explicitly knowing if the connected display has that value. Therefore, it moots Applicant’s argument and the rejection is maintained.
See the updated rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 22, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Amend above claims’ limitation to read “wherein the type used for the electro-optical conversion is independent of an HDR…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 15-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2014/0210847 to Knibbeler (“Knibbeler”) in view of US PG Pub 2016/0173811 to Oh (“Oh”).
Regarding claim 1, “A reception device” reads on an image processing apparatus comprising a receiver for receiving an image signal (abstract) disclosed by Knibbeler and represented in Fig. 1 (element 103).
As to “comprising: circuitry configured to 5receive image data of a high dynamic range video and characteristic information for an electro-optical conversion of the image data” Knibbeler discloses (¶0090, ¶0112, ¶0136) that the STB provides high dynamic range video data to the display by applying dynamic range transform to the received image to generate an output image with a higher dynamic range; (¶0111) a data value corresponding to an identification of a white point luminance and an Electro Optical Transfer Function corresponding to that of the target display may be included in the image signal by the content provider.
As to “the image data being obtained by transforming high dynamic range image input data into the image data through the application of a photoelectric conversion characteristic to the high dynamic range image input data” Knibbeler discloses (¶0135) that the target display reference alternatively or additionally comprise an Electro Optical Transfer Function (EOTF) indication for the target display; (¶0137) the communication of an EOTF of the target display provides an advantageous characterization of the target or reference display used to generate the encoded image or video; this characterization can then be used at the image processing device 103 to adapt the dynamic range transform to the differences between the characteristics of the target display and the end-user display; (¶0104) the image processing device receives an HDR image which is converted into an LDR image by applying luminance dynamic range transform; the transformed image can then be output to the display being an LDR display thereby resulting in the originally received HDR image being converted into a rendered LDR image.
As to “the characteristic information indicating a type for the electro-optical conversion that corresponds to a high dynamic range curve” Knibbeler discloses (¶0158-¶0161, ¶0337) that the high dynamic range image is to be displayed on a display by applying higher gamma curve at the content side tone mapping; when the received content is to be displayed on a low quality, low luminance display, such as a mobile phone display, the preferred gamma for the mapping curve may be as indicated by curve 705 of FIG. 7, i.e. a gamma of less than one may be preferred as represented in Fig. 7; (¶0156, ¶0167) the content provider apparatus 101 provides additional information that identifies the specific clipping that has been performed for the LDR image by the content provider thereby allowing the clipping to be partially or fully reversed; the dynamic range transform may define the range which has been clipped and the image processing device 103 may accordingly distribute the clipped values over this range in accordance with a suitable algorithm.
As to “wherein the type used for the electro-optical conversation is independent of an HDR display capability of an output device” Knibbeler discloses (¶0285, ¶0164) that the image processing device is arranged to perform a dynamic range transform based on a target display reference received from the content provider apparatus but without any specific information or knowledge of the specific display (i.e. it may simply generate the output image to be optimized for a given dynamic range/white point but without explicitly knowing if the connected display has that value.
As to “process the received image data” Knibbeler discloses (¶0088) that the processing device, such as a STB, performs signal processing algorithms on the data and decode the audiovisual signal.
Knibbeler meets all the limitations of the claim except “the high dynamic range curve including a first segment of a first curve and a second segment of a second curve that diverges from the first curve.” However, Oh discloses (¶0052) that the receiver receives UHD broadcast content and receive high dynamic range (HDR) metadata; where the HDR metadata indicates information on a method for transforming the UHD broadcast content to suit a display characteristics of a reception device and brightness information of the UHD broadcast content; (¶0097) the display in various different cases uses same linear transformation curve in one segment while uses an exponential curve or a logarithmic curve in a different segment as represented in Fig. 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Knibbeler’s system by having HDR curve including different segment with different curves as taught by Oh in order for the high dynamic range metadata to include at least one of a transformation curve type information for identifying a type of a transformation curve used for transformation of the ultra high definition broadcast content in each divided dynamic range section of the ultra high definition broadcast content, a transformation curve detailed information indicating detailed information on the identified transformation curve, and a luminance region rate information indicating a rate occupied by each section of the divided dynamic range in a representable dynamic range of the receiving apparatus (Oh - ¶0015).
Regarding claim 2, “The reception device according to claim 1, wherein the high dynamic range curve has a compatibility with a non-high dynamic range gamma curve, the non-high dynamic range gamma curve corresponding to a standard dynamic range” Knibbeler discloses (¶0156, ¶0167) that the content provider apparatus 101 provides additional information that identifies the specific clipping that has been performed for the LDR image by the content provider thereby allowing the clipping to be partially or fully reversed; the dynamic range transform may define the range which has been clipped and the image processing device 103 may accordingly distribute the clipped values over this range in accordance with a suitable algorithm; (¶0158-¶0161, ¶0337) the high dynamic range image is to be displayed on a display by applying higher gamma curve at the content side tone mapping; when the received content is to be displayed on a low quality, low luminance display, such as a mobile phone display, the preferred gamma for the mapping curve may be as indicated by curve 705 of FIG. 7, i.e. a gamma of less than one may be preferred. Messmer discloses (¶0018, ¶0062) that the video stream includes metadata indicative of the type of video equalization to be applied to the video content where the HDR content includes a segment of SDR.
Regarding claim 3, “The reception device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to receive maximum content light level information’ Knibbeler discloses (¶0096, ¶0112) that the HDR image cover a larger luminance range and typically have a higher maximum luminance value.
Regarding claim 4, “The reception device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to process the received image data based on the characteristic information” Knibbeler discloses (¶0090, ¶0112, ¶0136) that the STB provides high dynamic range video data to the display by applying dynamic range transform to the received image to generate an output image with a higher dynamic range; (¶0111) a data value corresponding to an identification of a white point luminance and an Electro Optical Transfer Function corresponding to that of the target display may be included in the image signal by the content provider.
Regarding claim 5, “The reception device according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is configured to process the received image data based on the characteristic information” Knibbeler discloses (¶0090, ¶0112, ¶0136) that the STB provides high dynamic range video data to the display by applying dynamic range transform to the received image to generate an output image with a higher dynamic range; (¶0111) a data value corresponding to an identification of a white point luminance and an Electro Optical Transfer Function corresponding to that of the target display may be included in the image signal by the content provider.
Regarding claim 6, “The reception device according to claim 1, wherein the second curve has a steeper slope than the first curve” Oh discloses (¶0064, ¶0067) that the display characteristics of the UHD broadcast signal reception device according to one embodiment of the present invention may be categorized into a display having an existing dynamic range (case 1), a display which has a dynamic range wider than an existing dynamic range but does not accommodate the dynamic range of the UHD broadcast content (case 2) and a display having a dynamic range wider than the dynamic range of the UHD broadcast content (case 3); as shown in Fig. 6, case 3 curve slope is steeper than case 2 and case 1.
Regarding claim 7, “The reception device according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is configured to process the received image data based on the characteristic information” Knibbeler discloses (¶0090, ¶0112, ¶0136) that the STB provides high dynamic range video data to the display by applying dynamic range transform to the received image to generate an output image with a higher dynamic range; (¶0111) a data value corresponding to an identification of a white point luminance and an Electro Optical Transfer Function corresponding to that of the target display may be included in the image signal by the content provider.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, see rejection similar to claim 7.
Regarding claim 22, see rejection similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 25, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Regarding claim 26, see rejection similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 28, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knibbeler in view of Oh as applied to claims 1 and 22 above, and further in view of US PG Pub 2007/0081721 to Xiao (“Xiao”).
Regarding claim 24, combination of Knibbeler and Oh meets all the limitations of the claim except “The transmission device according to claim 22, wherein the circuitry is configured to select the type for the electro-optical conversion based on a manual operation of a user.” However, Xiao discloses (¶0019-¶0020, ¶0048) that selecting, in accordance with the calculated degree of approximation, one of input-output characteristics stored in an input-output characteristic table and respectively corresponding to the plurality of feature histograms; and adjusting the selected input-output characteristic in accordance with the degree of approximation, the tone correction step including making the tone correction using the adjusted input-output characteristic. Combination of Knibbeler, Oh, and Xiao discloses the claimed invention except for selecting conversion type based on a user operation. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to select a type based on a user operation, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Knibbeler and Oh’s systems by selecting the type of electro-optical conversion as taught by Xiao in order to address precisely the technique for the photoelectric conversion on input video data having a high dynamic range as desired.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN T PENDLETON can be reached at (571)272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425